Contemporary Strategy Analysis 10th

Edition Grant Solutions Manual

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/contemporary-strategy-analysis-10th-edition-grant-solutions-manual/
 Contemporary Strategy Analysis (10th edition)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO SELF-STUDY QUESTIONS

Chapter 6
Organization Structure and Management Systems:
The Fundamentals of Strategy Implementation

1. Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, Inc., has asked for your help in designing a strategic
planning system for the company. Would you recommend a formal strategic planning
system with an annual cycle such as that outlined in “The Strategic Planning System:
Linking Strategy to Action” and Figure 6.1? (Note: Twitter’s strategy is summarized in
Strategy Capsule 1.5 in Chapter 1.)
Twitter is a public platform for sharing messages and other content. At the end of 2017, Twitter
was a company with $2.5 billion in annual revenues, but had yet to make a profit. Moreover,
revenue growth had stagnated during 2015-17.
The speed at which Twitter’s competitive environment changes—including technological
changes and the strategic initiatives of competitors—is not conducive to an annual strategic
planning process. Twitter’s top management team would need to meet far more frequently to
assess Twitter’s strategy in the light of changing circumstances and emerging threats and
opportunities.
Moreover, for a strategic planning system to be effective requires that accesses knowledge that
is relevant to these changing circumstances and emerging threats and opportunities. The
implication is that Twitter’s strategy making should also permit the involvement and
participation of organizational members outside the top management team in strategic decision
making in order to make use of their specialist expertise, access to information, and
perspectives.
To the extent that all large companies require hierarchical structure for their strategic planning
(and Twitter employs about 3,300 people), the standard division between “business units” and
“corporate” is probably not appropriate to Twitter. Any modularization of Twitter’s strategy
making should be based upon problem areas and the types of knowledge relevant to these
areas—e.g. technology, advertising and revenue generation, and external relations (including
privacy issues).
Given Twitter’s international scope and the different competitive and regulatory conditions in
different national markets, country-based strategic plans are also desirable.
For the purposes of strategy formulation therefore, Twitter needs a strategy process that is
more frequent and less formal than that outlined in Chapter 6. However, as the text explains, a
key role of a strategic planning process is not just to formulate strategy but also to implement it.
This implies a close linkage between strategic, financial and operational planning. To this end,
Twitter is likely to require an integrated process of strategic and financial planning that is linked
to both its external calendar of financial reporting (quarterly)and its internal calendar of
financial monitoring and control (probably monthly and quarterly).

Copyright © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1

 2. Select a persistently successful team in a professional sport with which you are familiar.
To what extent can the superior capabilities of this team be attributed to the role of
processes, motivation, and structure (as discussed in the section “Developing
Organizational Capability”)?

A major theme in Contemporary Strategy Analysis is that sustained competitive advantage is

typically the result of superior organizational capabilities deployed through an appropriate
strategy. An organizational capability typically requires the coordination of the activities of a
number of individuals—such coordination is achieved through processes. Hence, an
organization can be viewed as a system of processes.
Such processes are apparent in sports organizations. In all sports there are processes for
identifying, attracting and selecting talented individuals; for training these individuals; for
selecting and configuring teams; for supporting these teams medically, psychological and
nutritionally; and for generating the revenues needed to fund these activities.
For these processes to operate effectively and for different processes to complement one
another, then these processes need to be housed within organizational units and these
organizational units need t have leadership that is appropriate to their activities.
Finally, for these processes to generate superior capability, it is vital to have adequate
motivation both for individuals and for the groups of individuals engaged processes
In professional soccer, the role of processes, the placing of these processes within an
organizational structure and the motivating of individuals and teams can be seen in the
workings of any club that achieves sustained success. For example, these elements are apparent
at Manchester United under the leadership of Alex Ferguson, 1986 to 2013 (see my 2013 case
“Manchester United: Preparing for Life without Ferguson”).
The same factors were at play in the rise to prominence of British cycling between 1994 and
2016. British cyclists became world leaders as a result of a systematic program involving
processes for funding new facilities, developing participation in cycling at the grass roots level,
selecting high potential individuals, training these individuals, and supporting elite cycling
teams. Motivation was generated at multiple levels: at the political level for greater sporting
success to build national prestige, among participating cyclists, and among the public through
outreach and media relations

3. Within your own organization (whether a university, company, or not-for-profit

organization), which departments or activities are organized mechanistically and which
organically? To what extent does the mode of organization fit the different
environmental contexts and technologies of the different departments or activities?
In most universities I am familiar with there is a clear distinction between administrative units
(e.g. finance, student records, admissions) and academic departments (which are responsible
for undertaking teaching and research). They exemplify the two organizational types shown in
Table 6.1: mechanistic and organic.
Administrative units tend to be highly bureaucratized (“mechanistic”). Tasks are precisely
defined, specialized, and controlled through rules. Communication is primarily vertical, and
employees’ primary loyalty is to their immediate superior.
Academic departments are highly organic. Tasks are flexible and loosely-defined. There is a lack
of hierarchical control and faculty members coordinate through mutual adjustment.
Communication is mainly horizontal, and commitment is to the organization and to professional
standards rather than to the department head.

Copyright © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2

 These differences reflect the characteristics of the tasks (“technology”) and the environments
where they are performed. Most administrative tasks are repetitive and require little variation.
The environment they are performed within is stable. Their key performance requirements are
consistency and efficiency. Research and teaching activities are unstandardized. They require
innovation, creativity, and constant adaptation to changing circumstances. The high degree of
variation in the knowledge and personalities of individual professors require high levels of
individual freedom to adapt modes of working.
There are also some administrative tasks that fall somewhere in between these extremes. Fund
raising, marketing and external relations are all administrative tasks that are relatively
unstandardized and require flexible adaptation to changing circumstances. For these reasons,
university administrators whose careers have been spent in admissions, student records, and
finance tend not to make good VPs of fund raising, marketing, or communication. Similarly, with
IT support: these units tend to combine fixed rules for acquiring and maintaining software and
hardware and logging problems with the flexibility needed to respond to the myriad of user
problems.
4. In 2008, Citigroup announced that its Consumer business would be split into Consumer
Banking, which would continue to operate through individual national banks, and Global
Cards, which would form a single global business (similar to Citi’s Global Wealth
Management division). On the basis of the arguments relating to the “Defining
Organizational Units” (p. 144), why should credit cards be organized as a global unit and
all other consumer banking services as national units?
Consumer banking involves a number of products and services: credit cards, deposit taking and
account management, transaction processing, personal loans, mortgage banking, and
investment and wealth management. Why break out credit cards as a single global business
while organize all the rest by national subsidiaries?
The logic, presumably, is that the important coordination needs of people working in credit
cards is with other individuals working in credit cards whether or not they are in the same
country. However, for employees working in deposit taking and account management, it is
more important for them to coordinate with employees working on personal loans and
investment products within the same country than with employees working in deposit taking
and account management in other countries.
Why might this be so?
The credit card business is a highly standardized, IT intensive business, supported by a global
payments system. Individuals’ choice of a credit card issuer tends to be fairly independent of
their choices over other financial products. The credit card business is most efficiently managed
by an integrated global unit.
Other personal banking products tend to be less globally standardized. They are nationally
differentiated by culture and government regulations. Moreover, individuals are more prone to
“bundle” these products: gaining personal loans is easier from a bank where one has an
account. Sharing information about individual customers is important for selling and credit
appraisal. For these reasons, the key interdependencies are likely to be between employees in
the same geographical areas but working on different banking services.
.

5. The examples of Apple Computer and General Motors (see “Functional Structure”
section above) point to the evolution of organizational structures over the industry life-
cycle. During the growth phase, many companies adopt multidivisional structures;

Copyright © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 3

 during maturity and decline, many companies revert to functional structures. Why might
this be? (Note: you may wish to refer to Chapter 8, which outlines the main features of
the life-cycle model).
Firms that supply very different products (GE, Samsung, 3M) will always need to organize
around product divisions (see discussion of Du Pont under Q.2 above). Firms that supply more
homogeneous ranges of products (e.g. GM and Apple) can be organized either by product
division or functional department, the critical issue is this: Between which organizational
members is coordination more important: employees working in the same function (but in
different products) or employees within the same product across different functions? It
depends, in part, on the characteristics of the environment, which in turn depend on the stage
of the product life cycle. Thus, in the growth phase of the cycle, the emphasis on strategy is,
naturally, on growth. The emphasis of strategy is on developing new products, differentiating
them to appeal to groups of customers, and launching them. These activities require close
coordination between functions, coordination between products is less important. As products
mature, price competition becomes stronger, differentiation opportunities become fewer, and
the emphasis of strategy is on cost efficiency. Cross-functional capabilities such as product
development become less important, effectiveness and efficiency in functional capabilities such
as manufacturing, sales, marketing and finance become more important. At the same time,
differentiation between products becomes less evident. The implication is that functional
organizations are more closely aligned with industry key success factors. For example, once
excess capacity emerges in production and sales, then functional structures allow for the better
management of excess capacity and better allocation of capacity across products.

6. Draw an organizational chart for a business school that you are familiar with. Does the
school operate with a matrix structure (for instance, are there functional/discipline-
based departments together with units managing individual programs)? Which
dimension of the matrix is more powerful, and how effectively do the two dimensions
coordinate? How would you reorganize the structure to make the school more efficient
and effective?
An organizational chart may be drawn showing organizational units, or the job titles of the
individuals who hold positions in the organizational structure. To the extent that each
organizational unit is headed by an individual manager/coordinator, the result should be the
same.
Most business schools have some form of matrix organization. For example, the structure of
Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business is shown below. There are two primary
dimensions of the organization: the program structure (represented by three Associate Deans
for programs; then there is the discipline or functional structure (represented by the different
academic areas, each headed by a coordinator). Faculty members are recruited into different
disciplinary areas, then assigned to teach within the different programs.
In terms of decision-making power, the discipline-based part of the structure is primary. This
reflects status (within universities professors have more status than administrators), job
security (most senior professors have tenure), and actual decision-making power. Most
strategic decisions concerning programs are taken by committees—notably the Graduate
Curriculum Committee, the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, and the MBA Admissions
Committee—these committees are dominated by faculty and chaired by a faculty member.
Coordination between programs and the academic areas occurs in three principal ways:
• Hierarchically through the Dean.

Copyright © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 4

 • Through the different committee referred to above—including the Executive Council
whose members are all School employees.
• Informally through personal linkages. The most important links in this respect are
between the area coordinators and the program deans.
One criticism of this type of structure is that the program directors tend to be weak as
compared to department heads with the result that the dominance of departmental divisions
acts as a barrier to coordination and integration across departments. In MBA programs, for
example, efforts to take cross-functional, multidisciplinary approaches to business problems
tend are rendered ineffective because of departmental separation and identity.

Dean
Dean’s Office:
CFO, Communications, Special
Executive Council Projects

U’grad Graduate Technology Peer Review Rank & Tenure

Curriculum Curriculum Committee Committee Committee
Committee Committee

Associate Dean Associate Dean Associate Dean

Executive Programs Graduate Programs U’grad. Programs

MBA MBA Career MBA Student

Admissions Management Services

Deputy Dean

Coordinator, Coordinator, Coordinator, Coordinator, Coordinator,

Finance & Marketing Management Strategy Operations &
Accounting Area Area Area Area Decision
Sciences Area

Copyright © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 5

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
doctrine, and fills up the greater part of the epistle with reproofs of
these errors.

His argument against the doctrines of the servile Judaizers is

made up in his favorite mode of demonstration, by simile and
metaphor, representing the Christian system under the form of the
offspring of Abraham, and afterwards images the freedom of the true
believers in Jesus, in the exalted privilege of the descendants of
Sara, while those enslaved to forms are presented as analogous in
their condition to the children of Hagar. He earnestly exhorts them,
therefore, to stand fast in the freedom to which Christ has exalted
them, and most emphatically condemns all observance of
circumcision. Thus pointing out to them, the purely spiritual nature of
that covenant, of which they were now the favored subjects, he
urges them to a truly spiritual course of life, bidding them aim at the
attainment of a perfect moral character, and makes the conclusion of
the epistle eminently practical in its direction. He speaks of this
epistle as being a testimony of the very particular interest which he
feels in their spiritual prosperity, because, (what appears contrary to
his practice,) he has written it with his own hand. To the very last, he
is very bitter against those who are aiming to bring them back to the
observance of circumcision, and denounces those as actuated only
by a base desire to avoid that persecution which they might expect
from the Jews, if they should reject the Mosaic ritual. Referring to the
cross of Christ as his only glory, he movingly alludes to the marks of
his conformity to that standard, bearing as he does in his own body,
the scars of the wounds received from the scourges of his Philippian
persecutors. He closes without any mention of personal salutations,
and throughout the whole makes none of those specifications of
names, with which most of his other epistles abound. In the opening
salutation, he merely includes with himself those “brethren that are
with him,” which seems to imply that they knew who those brethren
were, in some other way,――perhaps, because he had but lately
been among them with those same persons as his assistants in the
ministry.
 On this very doubtful point, I have taken the views adopted by Witsius, Louis Cappel,
Pearson, Wall, Hug and Hemsen. The notion that it was written at Rome is supported by
Theodoret, Lightfoot, and Paley,――of course making it a late epistle. On the contrary,
Michaelis makes it the earliest of all, and dates it in the year 49, at some place on Paul’s
route from Troas to Thessalonica. Marcion and Tertullian also supposed it to be one of the
earliest epistles. Benson thinks it was written during Paul’s first residence in Corinth.
Lenfant and Beausobre, followed by Lardner, conjecture it to have been written either at
Corinth or at Ephesus, during his first visit, either in A. D. 52, or 53. Fabricius and Mill date it
A. D. 58, at some place on Paul’s route to Jerusalem. Chrysostom and Theophylact, date it
before the epistle to the Romans. Grotius thinks it was written about the same time. From all
which, the reader will see the justice of my conclusion, that nothing at all is known with any
certainty about the matter.

the ephesian mob.

Paul having now been a resident in Ephesus for nearly three

years, and having seen such glorious results of his labors, soon
began to think of revisiting some of his former fields of missionary
exertion, more especially those Grecian cities of Europe which had
been such eventful scenes to him, but a few years previous. He
designed to go over Macedonia and Achaia, and then to visit
Jerusalem; and when communicating these plans to his friends at
Ephesus, he remarked to them in conclusion――“And after that, I
must also visit Rome.” He therefore sent before him into Macedonia,
as the heralds of his approach, his former assistant, Timothy, and
another helper not before mentioned, Erastus, who is afterwards
mentioned as the treasurer of the city of Corinth. But Paul himself
still waited in Asia for a short time, until some other preliminaries
should be arranged for his removal. During this incidental delay
arose the most terrible commotion that had ever yet been excited
against him, and one which very nearly cost him his life.

It should be noticed that the conversion of so large a number of

the heathen, through the preaching of Paul, had struck directly at the
foundation of a very thriving business carried on in Ephesus, and
connected with the continued prevalence and general popularity of
that idolatrous worship, for which the city was so famous. Ephesus,
as is well known, was the chief seat of the peculiar worship of that
great Asian deity, who is now known, throughout all the world, where
the apostolic history is read, by the name of “Diana of the
Ephesians.” It is perfectly certain, however, that this deity had no
real connection, either in character or in name, with that Roman
goddess of the chase and of chastity, to whom the name Diana
properly belongs. The true classic goddess Diana was a virgin,
according to common stories, considered as the sister of Apollo, and
was worshiped as the beautiful and youthful goddess of the chase,
and of that virgin purity of which she was supposed to be an
instance, though some stories present an exception to this part of
her character. Upon her head, in most representations of her, was
pictured a crescent, which was commonly supposed to show, that
she was also the goddess of the moon; but a far more sagacious
and rational supposition refers the first origin of this sign to a deeper
meaning. But when the mythologies of different nations began to be
compared and united, she was identified with the goddess of the
moon, and with that Asian goddess who bore among the Greeks the
name of Artemis, which is in fact the name given by Luke, as the
title of the great goddess of the Ephesians. This Artemis, however,
was a deity as diverse in form, character and attributes, from the
classic Diana, as from any goddess in all the systems of ancient
mythology; and they never need have been confounded, but for the
perverse folly of those who were bent, in spite of all reason, to find in
the divinities of the eastern polytheism, the perfect synonyms to the
objects of western idolatry. The Asian and Ephesian goddess
Artemis, had nothing whatever to do with hunting nor with chastity.
She was not represented as young, nor beautiful, nor nimble, nor as
the sister of Apollo, but as a vast gigantic monster, with a crown of
towers, with lions crouching upon her shoulders, and a great array of
pictured or sculptured eagles and tigers over her whole figure; and
her figure was also strangely marked by a multitude of breasts in
front. Under this monstrous figure, which evidently was no invention
of the tasteful Greeks, but had originated in the debasing and
grotesque idolatry of the orientals, Artemis of the Ephesians was
worshiped as the goddess of the earth, of fertility, of cities, and as
the universal principle of life and wealth. She was known among the
Syrians by the name of Ashtaroth, and was among the early objects
of Hebrew idolatry. When the Romans, in their all-absorbing
tolerance of idolatry, began to introduce into Italy the worship of the
eastern deities, this goddess was also added there, but not under
the name of Diana. The classic scholar is familiar with the allusions
to this deity, worshiped under the name of Cybele, Tellus and other
such, and in all the later poets of Rome, she is a familiar object, as
“the tower-crowned Cybele.” This was the goddess worshiped in
many of the Grecian cities of Asia Minor, which, at their first
colonization, had adopted this aboriginal goddess of those fertile
regions, of whose fertility, civilization, agricultural and commercial
wealth, she seemed the fit and appropriate personification. But in
none of these Asian cities was she worshiped with such peculiar
honors and glories as in Ephesus, the greatest city of Asia Minor.
Here was worshiped a much cherished image of her, which was said
to have fallen from heaven, called from that circumstance the
Diopetos; which here was kept in that most splendid temple, which
is even now proverbial as having been one of the wonders of the
ancient world. Being thus the most famous seat of her worship,
Ephesus also became the center of a great manufacture and trade in
certain curious little images or shrines, representing this goddess,
which were in great request, wherever her worship was regarded,
being considered as the genuine and legitimate representatives, as
well as representations of the Ephesian deity.

This explanation will account for the circumstances related by

Luke, as ensuing in Ephesus, on the success of Paul’s labors among
the heathen, to whose conversion his exertions had been wholly
devoted during the two last years of his stay in Ephesus. In
converting the Ephesians from heathenism, he was guilty of no
ordinary crime. He directly attacked a great source of profit to a large
number of artizans in the city, who derived their whole support from
the manufacture of those little objects of idolatry, which, of course,
became of no value to those who believed Paul’s doctrine,――that
“those were no gods which were made with hands.” This new
doctrine therefore, attracted very invidious notice from those who
thus found their dearest interests very immediately and unfortunately
affected, by the progress made by its preacher in turning away the
hearts of Ephesians from their ancient reverence for the shrines of
Artemis; and they therefore listened with great readiness to
Demetrius, one of their number, when he proposed to remedy the
difficulty. He showed them in a very clear, though brief address, that
“the craft was in danger,”――that warning cry which so often bestirs
the bigoted in defence of the object of their regard; and after hearing
his artful address, they all, full of wrath, with one accord raised a
great outcry, in the usual form of commendation of the established
idolatry of their city,――“Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” This
noise being heard by others, and of course attracting attention, every
one who distinguished the words, by a sort of patriotic impulse, was
driven to join in the cry, and presently the whole city was in an
uproar;――a most desirable condition of things, of course, for those
who wished to derive advantage from a popular commotion. All
bawling this senseless cry, with about as much idea of the occasion
of the disturbance as could be expected from such a mob, the
huddling multitudes learning the general fact, that the grand object of
the tumult was to do some mischief to the Christians, and looking
about for some proper person to be made the subject of public
opinion, fell upon Gaius and Aristarchus of Macedonia, two traveling
companions of Paul, who happened to be in the way, and dragged
them to the theater, whither the whole mob rushed at once, as to a
desirable scene for any act of confusion and folly which they might
choose to commit. Paul, with a lion-like spirit, caring naught for the
mob, proposed to go in and make a speech to them, but his friends,
with far more prudence and cool sense than he,――knowing that an
assembly of the people, roaring some popular outcry, is no more a
subject of reason than so many raging wild beasts,――prevented
him from going into the theater, where he would no doubt have been
torn to pieces, before he could have opened his mouth. Some of the
great magistrates of Asia, too, who were friendly to him, hearing of
his rash intentions, sent to him a very urgent request, that he would
not venture himself among the mob. Meanwhile the outcry
continued,――the theater being crowded full,――and the whole city
constantly pouring out to see what was the matter, and every soul
joining in the religious and patriotic shout, “Great is Artemis of the
Ephesians!” And so they went on, every one, of course, according to
the universal and everlasting practice on such occasions, making all
the noise he could, but not one, except the rascally silversmiths,
knowing what upon earth they were all bawling there for. Still this
ignorance of the object of the assembly kept nobody still; but all, with
undiminished fervor, kept plying their lungs to swell the general roar.
As it is described in the very graphic and picturesque language of
Luke,――“Some cried one thing, and some, another; for the whole
assembly was confused;――and the more knew not wherefore they
were come together,”――which last circumstance is a very common
difficulty in such assemblies, in all ages. At last, searching for some
other persons as proper subjects to exercise their religious zeal
upon, they looked about upon the Jews, who were always a
suspected class among the heathen, and seized one Alexander, who
seems to have been one of the Christian converts, for the Jews
thrust him forward as a kind of scapegoat for themselves. Alexander
made the usual signs soliciting their attention to his words; but as
soon as the people understood that he was a Jew, they all drowned
his voice with the general cry, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”
and this they kept up steadily for two whole hours, as it were with
one voice. Matters having come to this pass, the recorder of the city
came forward, and having hushed the people,――who had some
reverence for the lawful authorities, that fortunately were not
responsible to them,――and made them a very sensible speech,
reminding them that since no one doubted the reverence of the
Ephesians for the goddess Artemis, and for the Diopetos, there
surely was no occasion for all this disturbance to demonstrate a fact
that every body knew. He told them that the men against whom they
were raising this disturbance had neither robbed their temples nor
blasphemed the goddess; so that if Demetrius and his fellow-craft
had anything justly against these men, as having injured their
business, they had their proper remedy at law. He hinted to them
also that they were all liable to be called to account for this manifest
breach of Roman law, and this defiance of the majesty of the Roman
government;――a hint which brought most of them to their senses;
for all who had anything to lose, dreaded the thought of giving
occasion to the awfully remorseless government of the province, to
fine them, as they certainly would be glad to do on any valid excuse.
They all dispersed, therefore, with no more words.

“‘Silver shrines,’ verse 24. The heathens used to carry the images of their gods in
procession from one city to another. This was done in a chariot which was solemnly
consecrated for that employment, and by the Romans styled Thensa, that is, the chariot of
their gods. But besides this, it was placed in a box or shrine, called Ferculum. Accordingly,
when the Romans conferred divine honors on their great men, alive or dead, they had the
Circen games, and in them the Thensa and Ferculum, the chariot and the shrine, bestowed
on them; as it is related of Julius Caesar. This Ferculum among the Romans did not differ
much from the Graecian Ναὸς, a little chapel, representing the form of a temple, with an
image in it, which, being set upon an altar, or any other solemn place, having the doors
opened, the image was seen by the spectators either in a standing or sitting posture. An old
anonymous scholiast upon Aristotle’s Rhetoric, lib. i. c. 15, has these words: Ναοποιοὶ οἱ
τοὺς ναοὺς ποιοῦσι, ἤτοι εἱκονοστάσια, τινα μικρὰ ξύλινα ἅ πωλοῦσι, observing the ναοι here to
be εικονοστάσια, chaplets, with images in them, of wood, or metal, (as here of silver,) which
they made and sold, as in verse 25, they are supposed to do. Athenaeus speaks of the
καδισκος, ‘which,’ says he ‘is a vessel wherein they place their images of Jupiter.’ The
learned Casaubon states, that ‘these images were put in cases, which were made like
chapels. (Deipnos. lib. ii. p. 500.) So St. Chrysostom likens them to ‘little cases, or shrines.’
Dion says of the Roman ensign, that it was a little temple, and in it a golden eagle, (Ρωμαικ,
lib. 40.) And in another place: ‘There was a little chapel of Juno, set upon a table.’ Ρωμαικ,
lib. 39. This is the meaning of the tabernacle of Moloch, Acts vii. 43, where by the σκηνη,
tabernacle, is meant the chaplet, a shrine of that false god. The same was also the ‫סכות דנות‬
the tabernacle of Benoth, or Venus.” Hammond’s Annotations. [Williams on Pearson, p. 55.]

Robbers of temples.――Think of the miserable absurdity of the common English

translation in this passage, (Acts xix. 37,) where the original ἱεροσυλοι is expressed by
“robbers of churches!” Now who ever thought of applying the English word “church,” to
anything whatever but a “Christian assembly,” or “Christian place of assembly?” Why then is
this phrase put in the mouth of a heathen officer addressing a heathen assembly about
persons charged with violating the sanctity of heathen places of worship? Such a building
as a church, (εκκλησια, ecclesia) devoted to the worship of the true God, was not known till
more than a century after this time; and the Greek word ἱερον, (hieron,) which enters into the
composition of the word in the sacred text, thus mistranslated, was never applied to a
Christian place of worship.

first epistle to the corinthians.

Paul’s residence in Ephesus is distinguished in his literary history,

as the period in which he wrote that most eloquent and animated of
his epistles,――“the first to the Corinthians.” It was written towards
the close of his stay in Asia, about the time of the passover;
according to established calculations, therefore, in the spring of the
year of Christ 57. The more immediate occasion of his writing to the
Corinthian Christians, was a letter which he had received from them,
by the hands of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus. Paul had
previously written to them an epistle, (now lost,) in which he gave
them some directions about their deportment, which they did not fully
understand, and of which they desired an explanation in their letter.
Many of these questions, which this epistle of the Corinthians
contained, are given by Paul, in connection with his own answers to
them; and from this source it is learned that they concerned several
points of expediency and propriety about matrimony. These are
answered by Paul, very distinctly and fully; but much of his epistle is
taken up with instructions and reproofs on many points not referred
to in their inquiries. The Corinthian church was made up of two very
opposite constituent parts, so unlike in their character, as to render
exceedingly complicated the difficulties of bringing all under one
system of faith and practice; and the apostolic founder was, at one
time, obliged to combat heathen licentiousness, and at another,
Jewish bigotry and formalism. The church also, having been too
soon left without the presence of a fully competent head, had been
very loosely filled up with a great variety of improper
persons,――some hypocrites, and some profligates,――a difficulty
not altogether peculiar to the Corinthian church, nor to those of the
apostolic age. But there were certainly some very extraordinary
irregularities in the conduct of their members, some of whom were in
the habit of getting absolutely drunk at the sacramental table; and
others were guilty of great sins in respect to general purity of life.
Another peculiar difficulty, which had arisen in the church of Corinth,
during Paul’s absence, was the formation of sects and parties, each
claiming some one of the great Christian teachers as its head; some
of them claiming Paul as their only apostolic authority; some again
preferring the doctrines of Apollos, who had been laboring among
them while Paul was in Ephesus; and others again, referred to Peter
as the true apostolic chief, while they wholly denied to Paul any
authority whatever, as an apostle. There had, indeed, arisen a
separate party, strongly opposed to Paul, headed by a prominent
person, who had done a great deal to pervert the truth, and to lessen
the character of Paul in various ways, which are alluded to by Paul in
many passages of his epistle, in a very indignant tone. Other
difficulties are described by him, and various excesses are reproved,
as a scandal to the Christian character; such as an incestuous
marriage among their members,――lawsuits before heathen
magistrates,――dissolute conformity to the licentious worship of the
Corinthian goddess, whose temple was so infamous for its
scandalous rites and thousand priestesses. Some of the Corinthian
Christians had been in the habit of visiting this and other heathen
temples, and of participating in the scenes of feasting, riot and
debauchery, which were carried on there as a part of the regular
forms of idolatrous worship.

The public worship of the Corinthian church had been disturbed

also by various irregularities which Paul reprehends;――the abuse
of the gift of tongues, and the affectation of an unusual dress in
preaching, both by men and women. In the conclusion of his epistle
he expatiates too, at great length, on the doctrine of the resurrection
of the body, vehemently arguing against some Corinthian heretics,
who had denied any but a spiritual existence beyond the grave. This
argument may justly be pronounced the best specimen of Paul’s
very peculiar style, reasoning as he does, with a kind of passion, and
interrupting the regular series of logical demonstrations, by fiery
bursts of enthusiasm, personal appeals, poetical quotations,
illustrative similes, violent denunciations of error, and striking
references to his own circumstances. All these nevertheless, point
very directly and connectedly at the great object of the argument,
and the whole train of reasoning swells and mounts, towards the
conclusion, in a manner most remarkably effective, constituting one
of the most sublime argumentative passages ever written. He then
closes the epistle with some directions about the mode of collecting
the contributions for the brethren in Jerusalem. He promises to visit
them, and make a long stay among them, when he goes on his
journey through Macedonia,――a route which, he assures them, he
had now determined to take, as mentioned by Luke, in his account of
the preliminary mission of Timothy and Erastus, before the time of
the mob at Ephesus; but should not leave Ephesus until after
Pentecost, because a great and effectual door was there opened to
him, and there were many opposers. He speaks of Timothy as being
then on the mission before mentioned, and exhorts them not to
despise this young brother, if he should visit them, as they might
expect. After several other personal references, he signs his ♦ own
name with a general salutation; and from the terms, in which he
expresses this particular mark already alluded to in the second
epistle to the Thessalonians, it is very reasonable to conclude, that
he was not his own penman in any of these epistles, but used an
amanuensis, authenticating the whole by his signature, with his own
hand, only at the end; and this opinion of his method of carrying on
his correspondence, is now commonly, perhaps universally, adopted
by the learned.

♦ “ownn,ame” replaced with “own name”

“Chapter xvi. 10, 11. ‘Now, if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear;
for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do: let no man therefore despise him, but
conduct him forth in peace, that he may come unto me, for I look for him with the brethren.’

“From the passage considered in the preceding number, it appears that Timothy was
sent to Corinth, either with the epistle, or before it: ‘for this cause have I sent unto you
Timotheus.’ From the passage now quoted, we infer that Timothy was not sent with the
epistle; for had he been the bearer of the letter, or accompanied it, would St. Paul in that
letter have said, ‘if Timothy come?’ Nor is the sequel consistent with the supposition of his
carrying the letter; for if Timothy was with the apostle when he wrote the letter, could he say,
as he does, ‘I look for him with the brethren?’ I conclude, therefore, that Timothy had left St.
Paul to proceed upon his journey before the letter was written. Further, the passage before
us seems to imply, that Timothy was not expected by St. Paul to arrive at Corinth, till after
they had received the letter. He gives them directions in the letter how to treat him when he
should arrive: ‘if he come,’ act towards him so and so. Lastly, the whole form of expression
is more naturally applicable to the supposition of Timothy’s coming to Corinth, not directly
from St. Paul, but from some other quarter; and that his instructions had been, when he
should reach Corinth, to return. Now, how stands this matter in the history? Turn to the
nineteenth chapter and twenty-first verse of the Acts, and you will find that Timothy did not,
when sent from Ephesus, where he left St. Paul, and where the present epistle was written,
proceed by a straight course to Corinth, but that he went round through Macedonia. This
clears up everything; for, although Timothy was sent forth upon his journey before the letter
was written, yet he might not reach Corinth till after the letter arrived there; and he would
come to Corinth, when he did come, not directly from St. Paul, at Ephesus, but from some
part of Macedonia. Here therefore is a circumstantial and critical agreement, and
unquestionably without design; for neither of the two passages in the epistle mentions
Timothy’s journey into Macedonia at all, though nothing but a circuit of that kind can explain
and reconcile the expressions which the writer uses.” (Paley’s Horae Paulinae, 1
Corinthians No. IV.)

“Chapter v. 7, 8. ‘For even Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep
the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the
unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.’

“Dr. Benson tells us, that from this passage, compared with chapter xvi. 8, it has been
conjectured that this epistle was written about the time of the Jewish passover; and to me
the conjecture appears to be very well founded. The passage to which Dr. Benson refers us,
is this: ‘I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.’ With this passage he ought to have joined
another in the same context: ‘And it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter with you:’ for,
from the two passages laid together, it follows that the epistle was written before Pentecost,
yet after winter; which necessarily determines the date to the part of the year, within which
the passover falls. It was written before Pentecost, because he says, ‘I will tarry at Ephesus
until Pentecost.’ It was written after winter, because he tells them, ‘It may be that I may
abide, yea, and winter with you.’ The winter which the apostle purposed to pass at Corinth,
was undoubtedly the winter next ensuing to the date of the epistle; yet it was a winter
subsequent to the ensuing Pentecost, because he did not intend to set forwards upon his
journey till after the feast. The words, ‘let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with
the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,’
look very much like words suggested by the season; at least they have, upon that
supposition, a force and significancy which do not belong to them upon any other; and it is
not a little remarkable, that the hints casually dropped in the epistle, concerning particular
parts of the year, should coincide with this supposition.” (Paley’s Horae Paulinae. 1
Corinthians. No. XII.)

second voyage to europe.

After the disturbances connected with the mob raised by

Demetrius had wholly ceased, and public attention was no longer
directed to the motions of the preachers of the Christian doctrine,
Paul determined to execute the plan, which he had for some time
contemplated, of going over his European fields of labor again,
according to his universal and established custom of revisiting and
confirming his work, within a moderately brief period after first
opening the ground for evangelization. Assembling the disciples
about him, he bade them farewell, and turning northward, came to
Troas, whence, six or seven years before, he had set out on his first
voyage to Macedonia. The plan of his journey, as he first arranged it,
had been to sail from the shores of Asia Minor directly for Corinth.
He had resolved however, not to go to that city, until the very
disagreeable difficulties which had there arisen in the church, had
been entirely removed, according to the directions given in the
epistle which he had written to them from Ephesus; because he did
not desire, after an absence of years, to visit them in such
circumstances, when his Corinthian converts were divided among
themselves, and against him,――and when his first duties would
necessarily be those of a rigid censor. He therefore waited at Troas,
with great impatience, for a message from them, announcing the
settlement of all difficulties. This he expected to receive through
Titus, a person now first mentioned in the apostle’s history. Waiting
with great impatience for this beloved brother, he found no rest in his
spirit, and though a door was evidently opened by the Lord for the
preaching of the gospel in Troas, he had no spirit for the good work
there; and desiring to be as near the great object of his anxieties as
possible, he accordingly took leave of the brethren at Troas, and
crossed the Aegean into Macedonia, by his former route. Here he
remained in great distress of mind, until his soul was at last
comforted by the long expected arrival of Titus. Luke only says, that
he went over those parts and gave them much exhortation. But
though his route is not given, his apostolic labors are known to have
extended to the borders of Illyricum. At this time also, he made
another important contribution to the list of the apostolic writings.

the second epistle to the corinthians.

There is no part of the New Testament canon, about the date of

which all authorities are so well agreed, as on the place and time, at
which Paul wrote his second epistle to the Corinthians. All
authorities, ancient and modern, decide that it was written during the
second visit of Paul to Macedonia; although as to the exact year in
which this took place, they are not entirely unanimous. The
passages in the epistle itself, which refer to Macedonia as the region
in which the apostle then was, are so numerous indeed, that there
can be no evasion of their evidence. A great topic of interest with
him, at the time of writing this epistle, was the collecting of the
contributions proposed for the relief of the Christian brethren in
Jerusalem; and upon this he enlarges much, informing the
Corinthians of the great progress he was making in Macedonia in
this benevolent undertaking, and what high hopes he had
entertained and expressed to the Macedonians, of the zeal and
ability of those in Achaia, about the contributions. This matter had
been noticed and arranged by him, in his former epistle to them, as
already noticed, and he now proposed to send forward Titus and
another person, (who is commonly supposed to be Luke,) to take
charge of these funds, thus collected. He speaks of coming also
himself, after a little time, and makes some allusions to the difficulties
which had constituted the subject of the great part of his former
epistle. Of their amendment in the particulars then so severely
censured, he had received a full account through Titus, when that
beloved brother came on from Corinth, to join Paul in Macedonia.
Paul assures the Corinthians of the very great joy caused in him, by
the good news of their moral and spiritual improvement, and renews
his ardent protestations of deep affection for them. The incestuous
person, whom they had excommunicated, in conformity with the
denunciatory directions given in the former epistle, he now forgives;
and as the offender has since appeared to be truly penitent, he now
urges his restoration to the consolations of Christian fellowship, lest
he should be swallowed up with too much sorrow. He defends his
apostolic character for prudence and decision, against those who
considered his change of plans about coming directly from Ephesus
to Corinth, as an exhibition of lightness and unsettled purpose. His
real object in this delay and change of purpose, as he tells them,
was, that they might have time to profit by the reproofs contained in
his former epistle, so that by the removal of the evils of which he so
bitterly complained, he might finally be enabled to come to them, not
in sorrow, nor in heaviness for their sins, but in joy for their
reformation. This fervent hope had been fulfilled by the coming of
Titus to Macedonia, for whom he had waited in vain, with so much
anxiety at Troas, as the expected messenger of these tidings of their
spiritual condition; and he was now therefore prepared to pass on to
them from Macedonia, to which region he tells them he had gone
from Troas, instead of to Corinth, because he had been disappointed
about meeting Titus on the eastern side of the Aegean. With the
exception of these things, the epistle is taken up with a very ample
and eloquent exhibition of his true powers and office as an apostle;
and in the course of this argument, so necessary for the re-
establishment of his authority among those who had lately been
disposed to contemn it, he makes many very interesting allusions to
his own personal history. The date of the epistle is commonly
supposed, and with good reason, to be A. D. 58, the fifth of Nero’s
reign, and one year after the preceding epistle.

MILETUS. Acts xx. 15‒17.

“Chapter ii. 12, 13. ‘When I came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, and a door was
opened unto me of the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother;
but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.’

“To establish a conformity between this passage and the history, nothing more is
necessary to be presumed, than that St. Paul proceeded from Ephesus to Macedonia, upon
the same course by which he came back from Macedonia to Ephesus, or rather to Miletus
in the neighborhood of Ephesus; in other words, that, in his journey to the peninsula of
Greece, he went and returned the same way. St. Paul is now in Macedonia, where he had
lately arrived from Ephesus. Our quotation imports that in his journey he had stopped at
Troas. Of this, the history says nothing, leaving us only the short account, ‘that Paul
departed from Ephesus, for to go into Macedonia.’ But the history says, that in his return
from Macedonia to Ephesus, ‘Paul sailed from Philippi to Troas; and that, when the disciples
came together on the first day of the week, to break bread, Paul preached unto them all
night; that from Troas he went by land to Assos; from Assos, taking ship and coasting along
the front of Asia Minor, he came by Mitylene to Miletus.’ Which account proves, first, that
Troas lay in the way by which St. Paul passed between Ephesus and Macedonia; secondly,
that he had disciples there. In one journey between these two places, the epistle, and in
another journey between the same places, the history makes him stop at this city. Of the
first journey he is made to say, ‘that a door was in that city opened unto him of the Lord;’ in
the second, we find disciples there collected around him, and the apostle exercising his
ministry, with, what was even in him, more than ordinary zeal and labor. The epistle,
therefore, is in this instance confirmed, if not by the terms, at least by the probability of the
history; a species of confirmation by no means to be despised, because, as far as it
reaches, it is evidently uncontrived.

“Grotius, I know, refers the arrival at Troas, to which the epistle alludes, to a different
period, but I think very improbably; for nothing appears to me more certain, than that the
meeting with Titus, which St. Paul expected at Troas, was the same meeting which took
place in Macedonia, viz. upon Titus’s coming out of Greece. In the quotation before us, he
tells the Corinthians, ‘When I came to Troas, I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not
Titus, my brother; but, taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.’ Then in
the seventh chapter he writes, ‘When we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest,
but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears; nevertheless,
God, that comforteth them that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus.’ These
two passages plainly relate to the same journey of Titus, in meeting with whom St. Paul had
been disappointed at Troas, and rejoiced in Macedonia. And amongst other reasons which
fix the former passage to the coming of Titus out of Greece, is the consideration, that it was
nothing to the Corinthians that St. Paul did not meet with Titus at Troas, were it not that he
was to bring intelligence from Corinth. The mention of the disappointment in this place,
upon any other supposition, is irrelative.” (Paley’s Horae Paulinae. 2 Corinthians No. VIII.)

second journey to corinth.

Among his companions in Macedonia, was Timothy, his ever

zealous and affectionate assistant in the apostolic ministry, who had
been sent thither before him to prepare the way, and had been
laboring in that region ever since, as plainly appears from the fact,
that he is joined with Paul in the opening address of the second
epistle to the Corinthians,――a circumstance in itself sufficient to
overthrow a very common supposition of the critics,――that Timothy
returned to Asia; that Paul at that time “left him in Ephesus,” and at
this time wrote his first epistle to Timothy from Macedonia. It is also
most probable that Timothy was the personal companion of Paul, not
only during the whole period of his second ministration in
Macedonia, but also accompanied him from that province to Corinth;
because Timothy is distinctly mentioned by Luke, among those who
went with Paul from Macedonia to Asia, after his brief second
residence in that city. No particulars whatever are given by Luke of
the labors of Paul in Corinth. From his epistles, however, it is learned
that he was at this time occupied in part, in receiving the
contributions made throughout Achaia for the church of Jerusalem,
to which city he was now preparing to go. The difficulties, of which so
much mention had been made in his epistles, were now entirely
removed, and his work there doubtless went on without any of that
opposition which had arisen after his first departure. There is
however, one very important fact in his literary history, which took
place in Corinth, during his residence there.

the epistle to the romans.

From the very earliest period of apostolic labor, after the

ascension, there appear to have been in Rome, some Jews who
professed the faith of Jesus. Among the visitors in Jerusalem at the
Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit first descended, were some from
Rome, who sharing in the gifts of that remarkable effusion, and
returning to their home in the imperial city, would there in themselves
constitute the rudiment of a Christian church. It is perfectly certain
that they had never been blessed in their own city with the personal
presence of an apostle and all their associated action as a Christian
church, must therefore have been entirely the result of a voluntary
organization, suggested by the natural desire to keep up and to
spread the doctrines which they had first received in Jerusalem,
under such remarkable circumstances. Yet the members of the
church would not be merely those who were converted at the
Pentecost; for there was a constant influx of Jews from all parts of
the world to Rome, and among these there would naturally be some
who had participated in the light of the gospel, now so widely
diffused throughout the eastern section of the world. There is
moreover distinct information of certain persons of high
qualifications, as Christian teachers, who had at Rome labored in the
cause of the gospel, and had no doubt been among the most
efficient means of that advancement of the Roman church, which
seems to be implied in the communication now first made to them by
Paul. Aquilas and Priscilla, who had been the intimate friends of Paul
at Corinth, and who had been already so active and distinguished as
laborers in the gospel cause, both in that city and in Ephesus, had
returned to Rome on the death of Claudius, when that emperor’s
foolish decree of banishment, against the Jews, expired along with
its author, in the year of Christ, 54. These, on re-establishing their
residence in Rome, made their own house a place of assembly for a
part of the Christians in the capital,――probably for such as resided
in their own immediate neighborhood, while others sought different
places, according as suited their convenience in this particular. Many
other persons are mentioned by Paul at the close of this epistle, as
having been active in the work of the gospel at Rome;――among
whom Andronicus and Junias are particularly noticed with respect,
as having highly distinguished themselves in apostolic labors. From
all these evangelizing efforts, the church of Rome attained great
importance, and was now in great need of the counsels and
presence of an apostle, to confirm it, and impart to its members
spiritual gifts. It had long been an object of attention and interest to
Paul, and he had already expressed a determination to visit the
imperial city, in the remarks which he made to the brethren at
Ephesus, when he was making arrangements to go into Macedonia
and Achaia. The way was afterwards opened for this visit, by a very
peculiar providence, which he does not seem to have then
anticipated; but while residing in Corinth, his attention being very
particularly called to their spiritual condition, he could not wait till he
should have an opportunity to see them personally, to counsel them;
but wrote to them this very copious and elaborate epistle, which
seems to have been the subject of more comment among dogmatic
theologians, than almost any other portion of his writings, on account
of its being supposed to furnish different polemic writers with the
most important arguments for the peculiar dogmas of one or another,
according to the fancy of each. It undoubtedly is the most doctrinal
and didactic of all Paul’s epistles, alluding very little to local
circumstances, which are the theme of so large a part of most of his
writings, but attacking directly certain general errors entertained by
the Jews, on the subject of justification, predestination, election, and
many peculiar privileges which they attributed to themselves as the
descendants of Abraham.
 This epistle, like most of the rest, was written by an amanuensis,
who is herein particularly named, as Tertius,――a word of Roman
origin; but beyond this nothing else is known of him. It was carried to
Rome by Phebe, an active female member of the church at
Cenchreae, the port of Corinth, who happened to be journeying to
Rome for some other purposes, and is earnestly recommended by
Paul to the friendly regard of the church there.

return to asia.

After passing three months in Corinth, he took his departure from

that city, on his pre-determined voyage to the east, the direction of
which was somewhat changed by the information that the Jews of
the place where he then was, were plotting some mischief against
him, which he thought best to avoid by taking a different route from
that before planned, which was a direct voyage to Syria. To escape
the danger prepared for him by them, at his expected place of
embarkation, he first turned northward by land, through Macedonia
to Philippi, and thence sailed by the now familiar track over the
Aegean to Troas. On this journey, he was accompanied by quite a
retinue of apostolic assistants,――not only his faithful disciple and
companion Timothy, but also Sosipater of Beroea, Aristarchus and
Secundus of Thessalonica, Gaius, or Caius of Derbe, and Luke also,
who now carries on the apostolic narrative in the first person, thus
showing that he was himself a sharer in the adventures which he
narrates. Besides these immediate companions, two brethren from
Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus, took the direct route from Corinth to
Troas, at which place they waited for the rest of the apostolic
company, who took the circuitous route through Macedonia. The
date of the departure of Paul is very exactly fixed by his companion
Luke, who states that they left Philippi at the time of the passover,
which was in the middle of March; and other circumstances have
enabled modern critics to fix the occurrence in the year of Christ 59.
After a five days’ voyage, arriving at Troas on Saturday, they made a
stay of seven days in that place; and on the first day of the week, the
Christians of that place having assembled for the communion usual
on the Lord’s day, Paul preached to them: and as it was the last day
of his stay, he grew very earnest in his discourse and protracted it
very late, speaking two whole hours to the company, who were met
in the great upper hall, where, in all Jewish houses, these festal
entertainments and social meetings were always held. It was, of
course, the evening, when the assembly met, for this was the usual
time for a social party, and there were many lights in the room,
which, with the number of people, must have made the air very
warm, and had the not very surprising effect of causing drowsiness,
in at least one of Paul’s hearers, a young man named ♦ Eutychus,
whose interest in what was said, could not keep his attention alive
against the pressure of drowsiness. He fell asleep; and the
occurrence must appear so very natural, (more particularly to any
one, who has ever been so unfortunate as to be sleepy at an
evening meeting, and knows what a painful sensation it is, though
the drowsiness is wholly beyond the control of the reason,) that it
can hardly be thought worth while to take pains, as some venerable
commentators do, to suppose that the devil was very specially
concerned in producing the sleep of Eutychus, and that the
consequences which ensued, were an exhibition of divine wrath
against the sleepy youth, for slumbering under the preaching of Paul.
If the supposition holds equally good in all similar cases, the devil
must be very busy on warm Sunday afternoons; and many a
comfortable nap would be disturbed by unpleasant dreams, if the
dozer could be made to think that his drowsiness was the particular
work of the great adversary of souls, or that he was liable to suffer
any such accident as Eutychus did, who, falling into a deeper sleep,
and losing all muscular control and consciousness, sunk down from
his seat, and slipping over the side of the gallery, in the third loft, fell
into the court below, where he was taken up lifeless. But Paul
hearing of the accident, stopped his discourse, and going down to
the young man, fell on him and embraced him, saying, “Trouble not
yourselves, for the life is in him.” And his words were verified by the
result; for they soon brought him up alive, and were not a little
comforted. Paul, certain of his recovery, did not suffer the accident to
mar the enjoyment of the social farewell meeting; but going up and
breaking bread with them all, talked with them a long time, passing
the whole night in this pleasant way, and did not leave them till day-
break, when he started to go by land over to Assos, about twenty-
four miles south-east of Troas, on the Adramyttian gulf, which sets
up between the north side of the island of Lesbos and the mainland.
His companions, coming around by water, through the mouth of the
gulf, took Paul on board at Assos, according to his plan; and then
instead of turning back, and sailing out into the open sea, around the
outside of Lesbos, ran up the gulf to the eastern end of the north
coast of the island, where there is an other outlet to the gulf between
the eastern shore of Lesbos and the continent. Sailing southward
through this passage, after a course of between thirty and forty
miles, they came to Mitylene, on the southeastern side of the island.
Thence passing out of the strait, they sailed southwestwards, coming
between Chios and the main-land, and arrived the next day at
Trogyllium, at the southwest corner of Samos. Then turning their
course towards the continent, they came in one day to Miletus, near
the mouth of the ♠Meander, about forty miles south of Ephesus.

♦ “Entychus” replaced with “Eutychus”

♠ “Maeander” replaced with “Meander”

Landing here, and desiring much to see some of his Ephesian

brethren before his departure to Jerusalem, he sent to the elders of
the church in that city, and on their arrival poured out his whole soul
to them in a parting address, which for pathetic earnestness and
touching beauty, is certainly, beyond any doubt, the most splendid
passage that all the records of ancient eloquence can furnish. No
force can be added to it by a new version, nor can any recapitulation
of its substance do justice to its beauty. At the close, took place a
most affecting farewell. In the simple and forcible description of
Luke, (who was himself present at the moving scene, seeing and
hearing all he narrates,)――“When Paul had thus spoken, he
kneeled down and prayed with them all.” The subjects of this prayer